1 / 21

ALEPH results on Quark- and Gluon Fragmentation

ALEPH results on Quark- and Gluon Fragmentation. Gerald RUDOLPH Inst.f.Astro- u Teilchenphysik, University Innsbruck. Workshop on parton fragmentation processes : in the vacuum and in the medium ECT, Trento, 25-29 Feb 2008. Content

minnie
Download Presentation

ALEPH results on Quark- and Gluon Fragmentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ALEPH results on Quark- andGluonFragmentation Gerald RUDOLPH Inst.f.Astro- u Teilchenphysik, University Innsbruck Workshop on parton fragmentation processes : in the vacuum and in the medium ECT, Trento, 25-29 Feb 2008 Q & G Fragmentation

  2. Content • Parton fragmentation is studied in the annihilation process • e+e- → Z/γ* → hadrons • in the energy region 91 – 207 GeV using the ALEPH detector at LEP. • Quark fragmentation functions and their evolution with energy scale • Identified light and heavy hadrons • QCD-Monte Carlo parameter fits • Bose-Einstein correlations • Gluon fragmentation • Not covered in this talk : • Colour coherence • g → cc, g → bb • Photon FSR from quarks Q & G Fragmentation

  3. Scaled energy x=E/Q ofchargedparticles At LO: Quark fragmentation function at scale Q=Ecm/2 JETSET data Z data + LEP2 data For theor. prediction, LEP2 data not used Data better described by MC models (2) Eur.Phys.J. C35(2004)457 Z data + lower Ecm (PETRA,PEP) Incl. flavour dependence Scale depend. at NLO → αS(MZ) (1) Phys.Lett.B 357(1995)487 Q & G Fragmentation

  4. Flavour-inclusive x distributions archived as computer-readable tables For Ecm=MZ at //durpdg.dur.ac.uk/hepdata/ For 133-206 GeV at //cern.ch/aleph/QCD/ Q & G Fragmentation

  5. Mean charged particle multiplicity 3NLO prediction : expansion parameter Y=ln(Q/Λ) Ecm-dependent flavour composition fitted parameters : Λ=0.20±0.03 GeV KLPHD=0.19±0.01 Q & G Fragmentation

  6. Inclusive x-distributions of identified light hadrons Measured at Ecm=MZ (high statistics) : Mesons : pi+, K+, pi0, eta, eta‘, K0, rho0, omega, phi,K*0, K*+ Baryons : p, Lambda0, Sigma(1385), Xi-, Xi0(1530), Omega- (3) Physics Reports 294(1998)1 (4) Eur.Phys.J. C16(2000)613 Examples : Q & G Fragmentation

  7. K+/π+ K0 p/π+ Λ0 HERWIG has problems with baryons ! Q & G Fragmentation

  8. The x and pT and event shape distributions at the Z were used to Fit the QCD-MC fragmentation parameters JETSET 7.4 Phys.Rep. 294(1998)1 HERWIG 6.1 Eur.Phys.J. C48(2006)685 Q & G Fragmentation

  9. Transverse momentum distributions pT,out > 1 GeV largest MC-data discrepancy pT,in pT,out Slight improvement using pT-ordered PS (now PYTHIA standard for pp Eur.Phys.J. C39(2005)129) as compared to Mass-ordered PS Q & G Fragmentation

  10. Heavy Quark Fragmentation B Phys.Lett. B512(2001)30 Scaled energy distributions of D*+ Eur.Phys.J. C16(2000)597 compared to tuned JETSET MC Q & G Fragmentation

  11. Production of HF meson spin states Measured Charm : from D, D* V/(P+V) = 0.595 ± 0.045 Bottom: from B, B* V/(P+V) = 0.77 ± 0.07 Standard JETSET only allows one common value V_c,b HVFL (not public): improved HF spin selection and decay tables Higher spin states : N(B**)/N(B) = 0.28 ± 0.08 Q & G Fragmentation

  12. Parametrisation of Bose-Einstein correlations Q = √(-(p1-p2)2) distribution of same-sign charged particle pairs Fitted BE32 model (PYTHIA 6) parameters λ = 1.1 σ = 0.33 GeV Needed to describe BEC‘s in WW → 4q decays Phys.Lett. B606(2005)265 Z → udsc Q & G Fragmentation

  13. Gluon fragmentation Charged particle x = E/Ejet distributions measured from symmetric 3-jet events at scale Q = Ejet sin θ/2 ≈12 GeV ≈ 20 GeV Eur.Phys.J. C17(2000)1 → gluon steeper than quark Phys.Lett. B384(1996)353 Q & G Fragmentation

  14. More extended analyses as a function of scale performed by DELPHI & OPAL Eur.Phys.J. C37(2004)25 → MC models low at x > 0.4 in gluon jet Q & G Fragmentation

  15. ALEPH, preliminary : 3-jet events (D,0.01) at Ecm=MZ of all topologies, photonic jets removed, 890 000 events selected, energy-ordering Ejet1 > Ejet2 > Ejet3, Jet 3 is 71% gluon Ratio MC/data ― JETSET --- ARIADNE MC low at x > 0.4 why ? Q & G Fragmentation

  16. Discussion on large-x discrepancy : (assuming it is related to hadronisation) Within the colour string model, parameters are determined by the dominant 2-jet events (quark jets). Gluon jet properties are predicted. Technical problem of treating the hadron at the gluon kink, or physics ?

  17. 3-jet events : neutral jets with a central rapidity gap Jet 3 is sensitive to colour-reconnection(Eur.Phys.J. C48(2006)685) Jet charge distribution of the lowest energy jet if no particles in 0 < y < 1.5 are required → CR too high (excluded) → no-CR too low (why?) Q & G Fragmentation

  18. ALEPH, preliminary : 3-jet events: effective mass of neutral (Q=0) particle system beyond rapidity gap (charged + neutral particles) ─ JETSET - - ARIADNE Jet 1 Jet 2 Data excess in 0.8-2.2 GeV Gluonium state(s) ? Jet 3 Q & G Fragmentation

  19. Conclusions Quark fragmentation functions : scale dependence qualitatively reproduced by global NLO parametrisations Differential distributions of charged particles and many identified light and heavy hadrons are quite well reproduced by QCD-MC programs, with parameters tuned to Z → hadrons data. persistent problem areas : large pT,out, baryons in HERWIG BEC‘s can be parametrised Gluon jet vs Quark jet differences are qualitatively as expected, but , gluon jet not fully understood in terms of QCD-MC programs : large x low-mass enhancement in case of rapidity gap Q & G Fragmentation

  20. More… Q & G Fragmentation

  21. Q & G Fragmentation

More Related